Ham sandwich navigation and radar failure

Question for the enroute controllers. You have a spamcan or two, not filed
/G, cleared direct to some fix. You don't care whether they are navigating
with pilotage, a VFR GPS, or a ham sandwich, so long as they are on radar
and don't go too grotesquely out of the way.

Now the radar goes kaplooey, or whatever noise radar makes when it decides
not to be radar any more.

How do you get these guys into the no-radar rules - point them at the
nearest navaid? Tell them to join the nearest airway? How do you maintain
separation? Does this possibility make you nervous while the radar is
working? I assume this is in the controller's handbook, but forgive my
laziness. Just curious.

-- David Brooks

For the purists, s/radar/RADAR/g. For the pedants, 1,$s/radar/RADAR/g

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Question for the enroute controllers. You have a spamcan or two, not filed
/G, cleared direct to some fix. You don't care whether they are navigating
with pilotage, a VFR GPS, or a ham sandwich, so long as they are on radar
and don't go too grotesquely out of the way.

Now the radar goes kaplooey, or whatever noise radar makes when it decides
not to be radar any more.

How do you get these guys into the no-radar rules - point them at the
nearest navaid? Tell them to join the nearest airway?


Bingo.



How do you maintain
separation?


You might not. But if they weren't on the verge of collision immediately
prior to the loss of radar they won't be on the verge of collision
immediately after the loss of radar. While there must be separation
standards avoiding collision is the reason for ATC.



Does this possibility make you nervous while the radar is
working?


Nope. The loss of radar will not cause the ATC facility to hit an aircraft
or terrain.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Does this possibility make you nervous while the radar is
working?


Nope. The loss of radar will not cause the ATC facility to hit an aircraft
or terrain.

But it could cause an aircraft to hit an ATC facility. Probably why
you guys are moving all those tracons off the fields and into safe
locations in the middle of nowhere.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Question for the enroute controllers. You have a spamcan or two, not filed
/G, cleared direct to some fix. You don't care whether they are navigating
with pilotage, a VFR GPS, or a ham sandwich, so long as they are on radar
and don't go too grotesquely out of the way.

Now the radar goes kaplooey, or whatever noise radar makes when it decides
not to be radar any more.

How do you get these guys into the no-radar rules - point them at the
nearest navaid? Tell them to join the nearest airway?



Bingo.



How do you maintain
separation?



You might not. But if they weren't on the verge of collision immediately
prior to the loss of radar they won't be on the verge of collision
immediately after the loss of radar. While there must be separation
standards avoiding collision is the reason for ATC.



Does this possibility make you nervous while the radar is
working?



Nope. The loss of radar will not cause the ATC facility to hit an aircraft
or terrain.



But it might cause an aircraft to hit the tower! :-)


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

But it might cause an aircraft to hit the tower! :-)


I've experienced a few radar failures. I've never known one to cause an
aircraft to quit flying.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

But it might cause an aircraft to hit the tower! :-)



I've experienced a few radar failures. I've never known one to cause an
aircraft to quit flying.



I didn't say it would cause it to quit flying. Well, at least not until
after it hit the tower.

Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I didn't say it would cause it to quit flying. Well, at least not until
after it hit the tower.


So how does a radar failure cause the aircraft to hit the tower?

"David Brooks" wrote in message ...
Question for the enroute controllers. You have a spamcan or two, not filed
/G, cleared direct to some fix. You don't care whether they are navigating
with pilotage, a VFR GPS, or a ham sandwich, so long as they are on radar
and don't go too grotesquely out of the way.

Now the radar goes kaplooey, or whatever noise radar makes when it decides
not to be radar any more.

How do you get these guys into the no-radar rules - point them at the
nearest navaid? Tell them to join the nearest airway? How do you maintain
separation? Does this possibility make you nervous while the radar is
working? I assume this is in the controller's handbook, but forgive my
laziness. Just curious.

-- David Brooks

For the purists, s/radar/RADAR/g. For the pedants, 1,$s/radar/RADAR/g

Love the VI commands. Shouldn't they have an escape-escape sequence before them?

-Nathan

In article ,
(Nathan Young) wrote:

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
Question for the enroute controllers. You have a spamcan or two, not filed
/G, cleared direct to some fix. You don't care whether they are navigating
with pilotage, a VFR GPS, or a ham sandwich, so long as they are on radar
and don't go too grotesquely out of the way.

Now the radar goes kaplooey, or whatever noise radar makes when it decides
not to be radar any more.

How do you get these guys into the no-radar rules - point them at the
nearest navaid? Tell them to join the nearest airway? How do you maintain
separation? Does this possibility make you nervous while the radar is
working? I assume this is in the controller's handbook, but forgive my
laziness. Just curious.

-- David Brooks

For the purists, s/radar/RADAR/g. For the pedants, 1,$s/radar/RADAR/g

Love the VI commands. Shouldn't they have an escape-escape sequence before
them?

vi, humph. It's ed. Kids these days... :-). Anyone else for teco?

Anyway, he's wrong(ish). It's decades since radar has been considered
an acronym and spelled RADAR. Even my Pathetic Oxford spells it all
lower-case. After all, we don't go around shouting LASER when we mean
laser any more, do we?

Hamish (and don't get me started on those people who insist on
"ded. reckoning"...:-))

Hamish Reid wrote:
vi, humph. It's ed. Kids these days... :-). Anyone else for teco?

Never did any TECO, but I did use SOS, a close cousin. Used to be
pretty good at the 029 card punch too :-)